could well be the paradigm example
characterizing the entire creation-evolution controversy
for it illustrates how creationists have taken an extremely
complex scientific question, simplified the matter to the
point of misrepresentation, and then have promoted the
blatantly false claim that the fossil record supports the
creationist world view. Indeed, from the manner in which
creationists have discussed this issue, one can only
conclude that either the creationists have consciously
adopted the tactic of outright distortion or they are so
abysmally ignorant of the scientific arguments and data
that their apparent distortions are only accidental, not
purposeful. (p. 178)

Cracraft also discusses the methodology employed by
creationists on this topic.

Creationists have adopted three lines of
argumentation against the existence of transitional forms:
(1) they quote liberally from various paleontologists as to
the paucity of transitional forms; (2) they define the
concept of "transitional form" in a way that is distinctly
different from the evolutionists' use of the term; and (3)
they simply deny the existence of intermediate taxa, whilst
ignoring the vast scientific literature opposing their
position. (p. 179).

In discussions about the existence of transitional forms
in the fossil record, no fossil has caused more feathers to
fly than Archaeopteryx, due to its pride of place as
a classic example of a transitional form - in evolutionary
terms, a form which exhibits characters shared with one
group and only that group, whilst also exhibiting other
characters shared with another group and only with that
group (e.g. Kitcher 1982), in
other words a morphological intermediate. Dr. Duane Gish of
the Institute for Creation
Research, is probably one of those most vocal in crying
foul at the recognition of Archaeopteryxas a
transitional form (e.g. Gish 1979,
1985, 1995). There have been various
commentaries on passages from Dr. Gish's 1978 book
Evolution? The Fossils Say No! (e.g. Kitcher 1982; Cracraft 1983; Raup 1983; Halstead 1984; Strahler 1987; Blackburn 1995), but relatively
little commentary about Dr. Gish's 1985 book Evolution:
The Challenge of the Fossil Record. This article looks
at a small portion of the 1985 book - that pertaining to
Archaeopteryx - in light of Cracraft's comments.

Dr. Gish has recently (1995)
published an updated version of his 1985 book, called,
Evolution: The fossils still say NO!. An analysis of
the treatment of Archaeopteryx in that book is
underway. However, the well known half life of literalist
creationist material, long after it has been superceded,
means that this may still represent a valuable resource for
people replying to literalist creationist statements about
Archaeopteryx.

Some material from Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil
Record has been rendered obsolete by new data accrued
in the 10 years since the book was first published.
However...

"In reference to Archaeopteryx,
Ichthyornis, and Hesperornis, Beddard stated:
"So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the
actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure
of these remarkable remains" (Beddard 1898, p. 160)." (p.
110)

Despite the fact that Beddard was writing in 1898, when
only two specimens of Archaeopteryx were known,
Beddard's (1898, p. 6) criterion
for identifying birds is instructive. "A bird may be known
by its feathers; to define a bird it is only necessary to
refer to its covering of feathers. No other animal has any
structures comparable to a well developed feather." Note
however that Beddard was in no doubt of the uniqueness of
Archaeopteryx, listing some 8 characters in which
"...Archaeopteryx differed from all known birds."
(p. 532). It is interesting to note here that the recent
dicovery of Sinosauropteryx - a dinosaur in China
which appears to preserve feathers - suggests that, at
least as far as fossil species are concerned, feathers may
not be such a good defining character for birds

These, characters are shared with reptiles and have
become more refined with the finding of additional
specimens, especially the Eichstätt specimen,
described in 1974. Such were the differences between
Archaeopteryx and all other birds that Beddard (1898, p. 159) was prompted to
write, "[t]here can be no question, in my opinion, that
birds must be primarily divided into two great divisions,
viz. Saururae and Ornithurae, the first contains
Archaeopteryx and possibly Laopteryx, the
latter the rest of birds, both living and extinct."
Clearly, although Beddard considered Archaeopteryx a
bird because it possessed feathers, he considered it
sufficiently different to all other birds to merit its own
division (Laopteryx was later reclassified as a
pterosaur by Ostrom in 1986).

"During the eighty five years since publication
of Beddard's book, no better candidate as an intermediate
between reptiles and birds than Archaeopteryx has
appeared. Not a single intermediate with part-way wings or
part-way feathers has been discovered." (p.
110)

This is an example of defining a transitional form in
such a way as to eliminate the possibility of ever finding
one (Cracraft 1983), since such
"part-way" intermediates would not be expected. The
evolution of features does not occur at the same time nor
at the same rate. Some characters evolve rapidly, others
more slowly, so that smooth, nicely "part-way"
intermediates will not be found. During the last eighty
five years, mosaic forms intermediate between
Archaeopteryx and birds, and between
Archaeopteryx and reptiles have been found. For
example, Mononychus (Altangerel et al. 1993),
"provides a character set of great importance to
understanding primitive birds, this set can be interpreted
unambiguously and it indicates a transitional position
between Archaeopteryx and all other birds." (Milner 1993, p. 589). Also, the
finding of Sinosauropteryx suggestd that feathers
may have come first and that feathered dinosaurs evolved
into birds. Thus an intermediate between dinosaurs and
birds would already possess feathers.

"Not a single intermediate with part-way wings
or part-way feathers has been discovered. Perhaps this is
why, with the passage of time Archaeopteryx in the
eyes of some evolutionists, has become more and more
'reptile-like'! In contrast to Beddard's assessment of
Archaeopteryx , some evolutionists today not only
assert that this bird is undoubtedly linked to reptiles but
that if clear impressions of feathers had not been found,
Archaeopteryx would have been classified as a
reptile. This is a gross overstatement to say the least."
(p. 110-111)

The "gross overstatement" is Dr. Gish's, on several
grounds.

On the link to reptiles, Beddard (1898, p. 154) states, "the general
belief is in the origin of birds from some reptile stem,
but there is not an absolute agreement as to precisely
which group of reptiles birds are most nearly akin to. The
researches of Marsh and Huxley, besides those of Cope,
Seeley, Hulke and others, have led to a general acceptance
of a nearer kinship with the dinosaurs than with any other
group of reptiles." Also, "[i]t follows, therefore, that in
sketching, at any rate, the main outlines of our scheme
attention must be paid only, or chiefly, to those
characters which birds have inherited from their reptilian
ancestors." (Beddard 1898, p.
159). It is clear that in Beddard's view,
Archaeopteryx was linked to reptiles and thus there
is no "contrast" between his views and the modern view.

The reptilian character of Archaeopteryx has long
been noted. In 1867, Huxley described birds as being
greatly modified reptiles (Newton
1884). Indeed, the very author and book that Dr. Gish
cites (Beddard 1898, p. 164)
stated, "[t]here can be no doubt that the
Archaeopteryx, far though it may have diverged from
the ancestral stock, has retained more of the reptile than
any other form known to us." Jordan & Kellogg (1916, p. 301) stated that, "A
comparison of the ancient reptiles with the long-tailed
Archaeopteryx and other toothed birds shows that the
birds and reptiles were once scarcely distinguishable,
although now so very different. Birds have feathers,
reptiles do not; but there is scarcely any other permanent
difference." "We may now stop talking about 'the missing
link' between birds and reptiles. So much so is Archaeornis
[the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx] this link
that we may term it a warm-blooded reptile disguised as a
bird." (Heilmann 1926, p.32).
"Archaeopteryx, on the other hand, is nearly one
hundred per cent reptilian, and if it were not for the
feathers no-one would hesitate to regard it as purely
reptilian or even dinosaurian." (Lowe
1935, p. 408). "There is in my opinion, nothing in the
entire skeleton which could be pointed to as being
definitely avian as opposed to dinosaurian." (Lowe 1935, p. 409). "[T]he close
relationship of reptiles and birds is generally accepted
and is a matter of common knowledge and history." (Lowe 1935, p. 399).
"Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis then, though
indubitably birds, as witnessed by their well developed and
typical flight feathers, their limbs and indeed their whole
skeletons, proclaim their reptilian ancestry in no
uncertain fashion." (Tucker 1938,
p. 322-323).

The above quotes (see also the Lull quote below) show
that Dr. Gish's claims are false. Neither the reptilian
affinities of Archaeopteryx, nor the statements that
without feathers Archaeopteryx would be classified
as a reptile, are recent constructs.

"From the reconstruction shown in Figure 11, it
is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird,
equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings,
feathers and a furcula, or wish-bone." (p
112).

Figure 1

The figure (reprinted here as Fig. 1) is taken from Lull
(1940, pl. XIV). However, the
caption to plate XIV cites Heilmann as the source. Dr.
Gish's Figure 11 is in fact, a painting, by Heilmann, from
the frontispiece of his 1926 book, The Origin of
Birds. Lull (1940, p. 328)
describes the figure, "[t]hese first birds, of which but
two or three specimens have been recovered, are known as
Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis (see Fig. 80
and Pl. XIV) are so reptile-like that were it not for the
preserved feathers it is doubtful whether they could be
surely proved to be birds." Prophetic words, since in 1940
a specimen of Archaeopteryx lay in the Haarlem
Museum, misidentified as a pterosaur, and more recently,
the Solnhofen specimen was recognised as being an
Archaeopteryx after being originally identified as
the small dinosaur Compsognathus.

Dr. Gish not only ignores Lull's clear proclamation
concerning the reptilian nature of Archaeopteryx,
but uses a 70 year old painting of Archaeopteryx,
drawn as a bird, to show that Archaeopteryx
was "very much a bird". Presumably, by the same logic,
"Barney" proves that dinosaurs were purple!

The painting does not show a "bird-like skull"; the feet
are obscured by the foliage; and the furcula is an internal
skeletal structure, thus making its exhibition in the
painting impossible. Besides, in Heilmann's
(1926) detailed
analysis, Archaeopteryx was compared with
maniraptoral dinosaurs only for the link to be rejected
because it was thought that maniraptoral dinosaurs lacked
clavicles (these are thought to be the precursor to the
avian furcula or wishbone) (Ostrom
1976). More recently, not only have clavicles been
found in dinosaurs such as Velociraptor,
Euparkeria and Ornithosuchus (Bryant & Russell 1993), but
indeed furculas have also been found in dinosaurs such as
Oviraptor and Ingenia (Barsbold 1983, Barsbold et al. 1990, Bryant & Russell 1993).
Therefore, possession of a furcula is no longer a character
unique to birds.

The wings of Archaeopteryx are structurally
dissimilar to those of modern birds; the wrist and finger
bones are unfused (as in most theropod dinosaurs, but
unlike birds and some cretaceous dinosaurs, in which the
bones are fused); the wrist articulation is also much less
than that in modern birds; the fingers retain claws in the
adult stage (as in other theropod dinosaurs but unlike
birds) and the shoulder joint is most similar to that of
the theropod dinosaur Deinonychus and appears
intermediate between theropod dinosaurs and birds (Jenkins 1993). Not only does the
painting fail to document some of the characters claimed by
Dr. Gish, but the painting is patently inadequate as a
scientific illustration - since it was never meant to be
one. A far more accurate figure to illustrate the true
nature of Archaeopteryx is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

This comparison between Archaeopteryx (a) (Parker & Haswell 1940) and a
modern bird (b) (Claus 1889) shows
the skeletal structure in detail and highlights the
differences. This figure clearly shows that the wing and
skull of Archaeopteryx differs from that of modern
birds.

"It has been claimed that the skull of
Archaeopteryx was reptile-like rather than
bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the 'London'
specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by
Whetstone (1983). Studies have
shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like
than previously thought (Whybrow
1982)." (p. 112-113)

There appears to be some confusion here, since the
cranium of the London specimen was prepared out by P.G.
Whybrow in 1980 and the problems encountered, the tools and
conservation methods used during the preparation were
detailed in a technical article (Whybrow 1982), Whetstone (1983) described and interpreted
the newly exposed cranium, not its removal. It appears that
Benton (1983) (the reference
cited by Dr. Gish in his next sentence - see below)
incorrectly attributed the description of the skull to
Whybrow. Whybrow actually makes no comment on the bird-like
nature of the skull. The error appears to have been
repeated by Dr. Gish, who also incorrectly cites Whybrow as
the source of this statement. By citing Whetstone and
Whybrow Dr. Gish gives the impression that the primary
literature had been consulted when, in fact, it appears not
to have been. The "bird-like" comparison comes from
Whetstone , "[t]he skull is much broader and more bird-like
that earlier interpreted by de Beer (1954), supporting the estimates of
brain size by Jerison (1973)."
(Whetstone 1983, p. 439).

The original quote is somewhat different from "...the
skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously
thought", since Whetstone compares the skull with de Beer's
interpretation and indicated that a larger skull size had
already been suggested by Jerison in 1973. Some
clarification might be in order at this point. In his
description of Archaeopteryx, in 1954, de Beer
thought that the skull was exposed along the mid-line,
suggesting that half of the braincase was exposed and half
buried in the matrix. This allowed de Beer to make an
estimate of the brain size. However, as Jerison (1973) pointed out, de Beer's
interpretation of the mid-line was in error, and only
approximately one third of the braincase was exposed.
Therefore de Beer's reconstruction underestimated the brain
size. Excavation of the cranium by Whybrow confirmed
Jerison's interpretation. An enlarged cranium relative to
the rest of the skull is a character of birds, in reptiles
the cranium is usually smaller. However, an enlarged
cranidium is not unique to birds. Several dinosaurs
also have enlarged craniums, including
Sauronrnithoides (Hopson
1980), Stenonychosaurus (Currie 1985) and Troodon (Currie & Zhao 1993). In some
cases the dinosaur cranium is more bird-like than the
cranium of Archaeopteryx.

Whetstone does describe the braincase (as opposed to the
skull) of Archaeopteryx as, "typically avian"
(p.449), however, he also describes skull features found in
Archaeopteryx and not in birds.

"This has led Benton to state that 'Details of
the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull
seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the
ancestral bird ... (Benton
1983).' Benton can only suggest that
Archaeopteryx may be an offshoot from the early
avian stem." (p. 112-113).

To reconstruct the original quote: "Details of the
braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull
seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the
ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem."
(Benton 1983, p. 99). However,
whether or not Archaeopteryx is the ancestral
bird does not detract from the fact that is a transitional
form. Transitional because it possesses characteristics in
common with reptiles and also characteristics in common
with birds. In other words, it possesses a mosaic of
characters, some obviously reptilian (such as the long bony
tail with many free vertebrae and the sacrum with 6
vertebrae; some transitional, such as the pelvic girdle and
the length of the arms; and some bird-like, such as
feathers and an opposable big toe). In fact, a recent study
of the new, seventh, Archaeopteryx specimen by
Elzanowski & Wellnhofer (1996) has highlighted this
mozaic nature by documenting that the skull has avian
(palatine + maxillary, hook shaped choanal process with a
long pterygoid wing) and theropod (single vomer, and hook
shaped jugal process of the ectopterygoid) traits. The
transitional nature of Archaeopteryx is due to its
morphology, not its taxonomy.

"John Ostrom has of late been the foremost
proponent of a dinosaurian ancestry for
Archaeopteryx. However, Tarsitano and Hecht have
criticized Ostrom's hypothesis, claiming amongst other
things that he had misrepresented the homologies of the
limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs
(Tarsitano & Hecht 1980). (p. 113).

This appears to have been taken from the Benton (1983) reference noted above,
suggesting that Benton, and not Tarsitano & Hecht 1980,
was Dr. Gish's primary source. If this was the case, Dr.
Gish has omitted the next line. The full statement
from Benton, (compare with Dr. Gish's statement above)
reads, "Finally, Tarsitano and Hecht (1980) criticized
various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis, and they considered
that he had misrepresented the homologies of the limbs of
Archaeopteryx and theropods. Thulborn & Hamley
(1982), reviewing all the
criticisms [of Tarsitano and Hecht and of Martin et al.
1980 - see below], however, have concluded that they are
without foundation (incorrect interpretations, inconclusive
evidence, persistence of primitive characters), and that
they do not "seriously weaken the hypothesis that
Archaeopteryx is closely related to theropod
dinosaurs"." (p. 99-100). Dr. Gish appears to have ignored
dissenting commentary on Tarsitano & Hecht 1980 to
strengthen his arguement.

"Martin, Stewart and Whetstone have also
challenged Ostrom's claim that birds were derived from
dinosaurs (Martin et al. 1980). Their analysis centers on
the structure of the avian tarsus (ankle) and avian teeth.
They say, 'Ostrom...has stated that the skeleton of
Archaeopteryx is essentially identical with that of
some small theropod dinosaurs' ... We think that many of
these 'coelurosaurian' features are incorrectly identified.
This is certainly true of the tarsal region, where
Archaeopteryx has a pretibial bone, fibula and
calcaneum of the avian type. In the dentition,
Archaeopteryx has unserrated teeth with constricted
bases and expanded roots like those of other Mesozoic
birds." (p. 113)

In their 1980 paper, Martin, Stewart and Whetstone
supported the theory that crocodiles were more closely
related to birds than any other group. However their paper
has been criticized by a number of other palaeontologists.
Both Thulborn & Hamley (1982) and Cracraft (1986) commented that the analyses
of Martin et al. (amongst others) were either
insufficiently comparative, or that the arguments presented
were not supported by rigorous phylogenetic methods. More
specific criticism comes from Howgate (1984, p. 173) who, in reply to the
claims made for the teeth of Archaeopteryx, states
that, "no matter how similar are the teeth of Cretaceous
birds and of crocodiles, there is little similarity of
either to the teeth of Archaeopteryx. Of the
characters supposedly indicative of close relationships
only one is present, namely the lack of serrations."
Thulborn & Hamley (1982, p.
623) comment that, "Martin et al. (1980, p. 89) have made a
similar suggestion, maintaining that the ascending process
of the Archaeopteryx ankle is 'primarily associated
with the calcaneum'. However, these authors present a
decidedly ambiguous reconstruction of the
Archaeopteryx ankle; it shows the ascending process
associated equally with the astragalus and calcaneum. The
Archaeopteryx ankle depicted by Martin et al. (1990,
fig. 1G) seems, in fact, to be structurally intermediate
between the theropod ankle and the neornithiform bird
ankle." By 1985, the leading proponent of the crocodilian
theory, Walker, had decided that the theory was no longer
tenable (Dobson 1985).

Although there was disagreement over which
reptile group were ancestral to birds, all these workers
agreed that birds were descended from a group of
reptiles.

"The presence of claws on the wings of
Archaeopteryx are often cited as evidence of a
reptilian ancestry. However, there are at least three birds
very much alive and well today that have claws on the
wings, but no one for a moment would claim that any of
these is intermediate between reptile and bird. The hoatzin
(Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird,
possesses two claws in its juvenile stage. Furthermore, it
is a poor flyer, with an astonishingly small keel, another
feature attributed to Archaeopteryx. The young of
the touraco (Touraco corythaix) an African bird, has
claws on each wing and the adult is also a poor flyer. The
ostrich has three claws on each wing, which, if one chose
to do so, could be characterized as even more reptile-like
than those of Archaeopteryx." (p.
113-114)

It is significant that claws are present on the fingers
of Archaeopteryx, in the adult form. The
hoatzin and the touraco lose the claws by the time they
reach the adult condition. The claws are present in the
juvenile to assist in climbing the dense foliage in which
these birds live. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws
tosome extent, usually in the embryonic stage (e.g. Romanoff 1960), but they are lost
by the time the bird hatches. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says, "in retaining a
primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just
before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its
reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the
contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the
reptilian ancestry of birds."

The shoulder joint of Archaeopteryx is more
similar to the theropod dinosaur Deinonychus, than
to modern birds (Jenkins 1993),
the shoulder joint of the ostrich is more similar to other
birds than than to the shoulder joint of
Archaeopteryx. The wrist joint of the ostrich is
partially fused as in modern birds, whereas the wrist joint
of Archaeopteryx is not, as in typical reptiles. The
fingers of the ostrich wing are fused together as in modern
birds, the fingers of Archaeopteryx are free, as in
typical reptiles. Thus, the wing of the ostrich can in no
way be described as "even more reptile-like than those of
Archaeopteryx."

"Another alleged reptilian feature of
Archaeopteryx was its possession of teeth. If this
is a feature derived from a reptilian ancestor, and toothed
birds subsequently evolved into toothless birds, then the
fossil record should produce intermediates documenting the
gradual loss of teeth in birds. Not one single intermediate
has ever been discovered. Some fossil birds have teeth some
did not. That this should be true is not surprising since
this is true of all other classes of vertebrates - fish,
amphibians, reptiles and mammals. Furthermore, following
the notion that the absence of teeth denotes a more
'advanced' state, then the duck-billed platypus and the
spiny anteater, mammals that do not have teeth, should be
considered more advanced or highly evolved than man, yet in
many other ways, as previously mentioned, the duck-billed
platypus and spiny anteater could be considered the most
primitive of all mammals. Thus, the possession or absence
of teeth proves nothing about ultimate ancestry." (p.
114)

The lack of intermediates showing tooth reduction has
more to do with the lack of fossils and the way evolution
operates than with any lack of such intermediates in the
history of the birds. The number of Jurassic and Cretaceous
bird fossils number only a few dozen at best. It is not
surprising that such intermediates are not represented.
However, as has been pointed out previously the expectation
of finding such smooth intermediates is fallacious.

"Advanced" and "primitive" carry certain connotations.
Biologists now use 'derived' for "advanced" and 'ancestral'
for "primitive". However, what are considered derived
characters for one group cannot be used to decide what are
derived characters in another group. For instance, derived
characters in snakes are (in order of appearence);
reduction of limbs, loss of limbs and reduction from two to
one lung, acquisition of fangs, acquisition of sensory
pits. Thus from the point of view of snake evolution,
humans, with their retention of limbs, retention of two
lungs, absence of fangs and absence of sensory pits, are
ancestral, or "primitive". As can be seen from this example
what is sauce for the snake is certainly not sauce for the
human! The absence of teeth is considered a derived
character in birds, it is of little importance when
deciding which characters are "advanced" in other
groups. Thus the claim that, "the duck-billed platypus
and the spiny anteater, mammals that do not have teeth,
should be considered more advanced or highly evolved than
man" is ludicrous, and Dr Gish should know this.

"Evolutionists have long maintained that
contemporaries could not have an ancestral-descendant
relationship but if related, they must have evolved from a
common ancestor sometime in the past." (p.
116)

This is only true for populations, not for
species in general. A population can be described as a
(usually) reproductively isolated group of individuals
which comprise a specific gene pool. Changes to that gene
pool over time (the death of individuals, the birth of new
individuals, mutations, etc.) all conspire to alter the
genetic composition of the population so that the
descendant population represents the original
population plus the sum of the changes over time. Thus the
descendant population cannot coexist with the ancestral
population because the descendant population is the
ancestral population, plus the sum of the changes over
time. However, in the vast majority of cases, one
population does not comprise the entire species. There are
usually multiple populations spread out geographically,
some interact, some do not. What happens in one isolated
population is not mirrored in the species as a whole.
Indeed, changes in isolated populations is one of the
engines powering speciation. Whilst the descendant
population cannot be contemporaneous with its ancestral
population, it can be contemporaneous with the
ancestral species. A good example is the polar bear,
Ursus maritimus.

It is thought that polar bears evolved from a population
of brown bears (Ursus arctos) which became isolated
above the Arctic Circle during one of the last major
glacials. Separated from the main populations of brown
bears, which remained further south, this ancestral
population adapted to the cold climate (fur on the feet,
white coat for camouflage during hunting, etc.), evolving
into Ursus maritimus, whilst the more southerly
populations retained the original characters. In this
example, the modern polar bears cannot coexist with the
ancestral population of brown bears from which they are
considered to have descended, because they are that
population, plus the sum of the genetic changes that have
occurred over time. However, they can, and obviously do,
coexist with the ancestral species - Ursus arctos.
What Dr. Gish is trying to suggest, is that two
contemporaneous species cannot have an ancestor-descendant
relationship. As the polar bear example shows, this is not
the case. Indeed ancestral species have been known to
outlive their descendant species (e.g. Ozawa 1975).

"In a somewhat similar fashion,
Archaeopteryx, although unquestionably a bird, was a
mosaic which included some features that are usually termed
'reptilian.' In this respect, it is interesting to note the
comment of Steven Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, both
Ardent anticreationists. They state that, 'At the higher
level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in
trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most
Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between
Baupläne are almost impossible to construct,
even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence
for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like
Archaeopteryx do not count)' (Gould & Eldredge 1977, p. 147).
There are several important aspects of this statement, each
of which seriously damages the credibility of evolutionary
theory." (p.114-115)

There certainly are important aspects to the statement
of Eldredge and Gould, as used by Dr. Gish, but the damage
is to the credibility of creationists. The article in
question is a discussion of punctuated equilibrium and how
the evidence from the fossil record does not support a
purely gradualistic evolutionary model. Eldredge and Gould
point out that intermediates, for the most part, do not
exhibit such smooth evolution, but that features evolve at
differing rates. In this they were following the ideas put
forward by de Beer (1969, p. 133-134;
first published as de Beer 1954), who
suggested that, "the statement that the animal was
intermediate might mean that it was a mixture and that the
transition affected some parts of the animal and not
others, with the result that some parts were similar to
those of one type, other parts similar to another type, and
few or no parts intermediate in structure. In such a case
the animal might be regarded as a mosaic in which the
pieces could be replaced independently one by one, so that
the transitional stages were a jumble of characters, some
of them similar to those of the class from which the animal
evolved, others similar to those of the class in which the
animal was evolving. If now it be asked what kind of
transition is shown by Archaeopteryx, the answer is
perfectly clear. It is a mosaic in which some characters
are perfectly reptilian and others no less perfectly
avian."

Thus being a "mosaic" does not disqualify a form from
being an intermediate, merely a smooth
intermediate.

"Not only is it impossible at this level to
find a smooth series of intermediates in the fossil record,
it is impossible to imagine what such intermediates
may have looked like (for example, try to imagine am
emergent Pteranodon with half a jaw and half a
wing!). Finally, note that Gould and Eldredge specifically
exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form,
terming it, as is the duck-billed platypus, a strange
mosaic that doesn't count. So much for Archaeopteryx
as an intermediate!" (p.115)

This represents a clear misrepresentation of Gould and
Eldredge This probably ranks as the most famous case of the
misrepresentation of scientists by a creationist author.
From the previous discussion, it is obvious that Eldredge
and Gould did not "specifically exclude
Archaeopteryx as a transitional form", but merely as
an example of a smooth transitional form. This kind
of misrepresentation has led Gould to clarify his position.
On transitional forms in general, he states, "since we
proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -
whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as
admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
species level but are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983, p. 260). More
specifically, Gould (1991, p.
144-145) states that "Archaeopteryx, the first bird,
is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever
hope to find." Strange words from someone who "specifically
exclude[s] Archaeopteryx as an intermediate"!

"Swinton, an evolutionist and an expert on
birds, states: The origin of birds is largely a matter of
deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages
through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird
was achieved (Swinton 1960). Romer has said that: This
Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid
isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont
ancestry nor of its relation to later 'proper' birds than
before (Romer 1968)." (p. 114)

Both Swinton and Romer were writing some 16 and 8 years,
respectively, before Ostrom's (1976) seminal work on
the relationships between Archaeopteryx and
maniraptoral dinosaurs. Their comments are no longer
representative of current thinking on the origin of birds,
nor the ancestry of Archaeopteryx, and were not for
some 9 years before Dr. Gish wrote his book.

"A recent discovery by paleontologist James
Jensen has dealt an especially serious blow to the claim
that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form
between reptiles and birds. Jensen has found what he
believes to be fossil remains of undoubted modern birds in
rocks of the Upper Jurassic, the rocks in which
Archaeopteryx has been found. Regardless of what one
believes about the time scale or the geological column,
this discovery, if ultimately verified, means that
Archaeopteryx was a contemporary of modern birds."
(p. 116)

This refers to an article by Jensen in 1981, where several
avian-like bones were described, with the proximal part of
a tibiotarsus were given the name Palaeopteryx
thomsoni. However, Jensen & Padian (1989) re-identified this bone as
belonging to the theropod dinosaur Deinonychus.
Their conclusions were deliberately blunt : "No material
described here is unquestionably avian. Most is
pterodactyloid. Several specimens pertain to the
monophyletic group formed by birds and deinonychosaurs.
Archaeopteryx is the earliest known bird; these
Morrison Formation sediments are younger that the Solnhofen
limestones from which Archaeopteryx comes." (p.
372)

Dr. Gish states that Archaeopteryx was, "very
much a bird" (p. 112), and, "an undoubted true bird" (p.
116). However, the classification of Archaeopteryx
as a bird says nothing about its ancestry. As Raup (1983, p.157) says, "[t]he practicing
paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil
in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a
birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as
Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the
taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an
intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia.
Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place
his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility
of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an
artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is
conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I
have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under
the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some
sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles
that we would indeed do that."

Many of Dr. Gish's assertions about Archaeopteryx
have been shown to be incorrect. Some of these claims have
been rendered invalid due to evidence found since Dr.
Gish's book was first published. However, in a significant
number of cases, invalidating evidence was known at the
time the claims were made.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Rich Trott for initially
suggesting this project and supplying valuable material and
advice. Marianne Cotugno is thanked for a valuable review
of the first draft and Tom Holtz is thanked for suggesting
the polar bear example. The text was originally coverted to
HTML format for the talk.origins archive by
Brett Vickers.

Bryant, H.N.
& Russell, A.P. 1993. The occurrence of clavicles
within dinosauria: implications for the homology of the
avian furcula and the utility of negative evidence. Journal
of Vertebrate Paleontology, 13:171-184.

Whybrow, P.
J. 1982. Preparation of the cranium of the holotype of
Archaeopteryx lithographica from the collections of
the British Museum (Natural History). Neues Jahrbuch
für Geologie und Paläontologie, 1982(3)
184-192.